Obama obviously has no allegiance to either those who voted for him or to members of his party. Today he was meeting with Republicans to determine what they will support going forward. Obama and his right wing advisor Emanuel are more concerned with what Republicans think than with what Democrats think. He doesn't care at all about what progressives (who don't have a party) think.
The health insurance deform that was heavily supported by Obama was right wing legislation that, to Obama's surprise, no Republican agreed to support because it wasn't far enough to the right for their extreme tastes. The Republicans may secretly favor the mandate but they don't support, for example, the government regulating the coverage details of private insurance policy contracts.
If passed, these health insurance proposals would hammer the already partially collapsed economy and the totally collapsed labor market and cause additional damage to both. It would be sort of like force feeding someone very sick a huge, multi-dish meal. Whereas single payer is the medicine needed.
The "public option" shrunk to the point where it was just a mockery of the original public option as proposed by Joseph Hacker. And even that one, with over 100 million enrollees, would fail to control costs to the extent necessary, although that one would probably be a little better than nothing.
Why make things more complicated than they are? It's single payer or nothing, especially with a collapsed labor market involved. Democrats, to avoid a total wipe-out in November and due to inability to agree with hard right provisions in the Senate bill, have apparently wisely decided to cut their losses on this effort, which was doomed to failure from the very start. Were these laws to pass, the damage would have been much more extensive. If the legislation passed, the losses would accrue not only to the Democrats but to the economy and the people in it.
In the end, the only strong support for the proposed health insurance laws came from those who would directly benefit the most: from those directly or at least indirectly working in the health related industries. That alone tells you the proposals were not going to help the economy or the health care of the people as a whole. The health sectors are acting as a severe drag on the economy that is left, and quite frankly they need to be hurt a little in the short run if the economy as a whole (including health) is going to be helped in the longer run.
The Democrats should attempt to pass certain components piece by piece. They could catch far right Republicans red handed for voting against the banning of pre-existing condition clauses and the like. That they won’t do that proves that it is not only Obama who favors the Republicans over 1930’s-1970’s grade Democrats, but it is also the current right wing Democratic legislators. Durbin, Hoyer, Pelosi, all of them are essentially Republicans by 1930-1980 standards, not Democrats.
The above was in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Men Who in Obama's Book are too big to Fail
UNITY PROGRESS
Emanuel, Geithner, and Summers, Bernanke, these are all men who, just like the huge banks, are all too big to fail in the present regime. These are very big, very rich men. Obama is afraid to fire any of them. So Obama is small compared to them, very small.
So we can see that yet another problem with the US is that the President can end up being just a little blip on the radar screen, especially if, like Obama, the president happens to be a wishy washy person who naively thinks that agreement regarding making the economy work for everyone can be reached with people whose only interest is for themselves and their friends to get richer at all costs.
GUEST COMMENT
UNITY PROGRESS
Not at all, I have repeatedly and since about March been ripping Obama for abandoning basically everyone who voted for him and for being way too far to the right. I've been extremely anti-Obama and I was one of the very first to predict that he will lose in 2012.
However, technically Obama is not fully part of "the conspiracy," as you put it, to destroy the US economy because the economy was essentially wrecked long before Obama even ran for President, and because he has been working mostly in the public sector over the years, whereas advisors such as Geithner and Summers are mostly private sector fortune seekers. If he is part of "the conspiracy," he is a johnny come lately.
It is possible that Obama is simply extremely naive and has not understood just how bad the economy is until perhaps recently. After all, other than in the 1930's, the economy has always bounced back and jobs have always increased after every downturn. Until now.
My point in my short comment just above (which suffered like all short comments from a lack of enough context) was that whether or not Obama is part of "the conspiracy," he suffers from lack of political courage and from political naïveté. His lack of courage is shown by his being afraid to fire anyone.
With regard to the naiveté, When Obama thinks he can make agreements with those who don't really care whether the economy and /or the health care system works or not (with those who definitely are part of “the conspiracy”) and then no agreements emerge, does it really matter whether Obama is conspiratorial or not? He isn't going to be successful even if he is not conspiratorial.
In other words, even if he is not part of "the conspiracy," he might as well be. Whether he is part of "the conspiracy" is technically irrelevant in Obama's case, given the fact that he puts way too much faith in right wing Democrats such as Ben Nelson and in even farther to the right Republicans. He has not understood up to the present day that politicians such as those are obstacles that have to somehow be overcome (for example, by threatening them with prospective assistance to primary challengers) rather than assets that he can work with. The economy and the society as a whole is simply too damaged for the likes of Ben Nelson and Susan Collins to be relevant anymore, other than to the rich of course.
The above is in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
Emanuel, Geithner, and Summers, Bernanke, these are all men who, just like the huge banks, are all too big to fail in the present regime. These are very big, very rich men. Obama is afraid to fire any of them. So Obama is small compared to them, very small.
So we can see that yet another problem with the US is that the President can end up being just a little blip on the radar screen, especially if, like Obama, the president happens to be a wishy washy person who naively thinks that agreement regarding making the economy work for everyone can be reached with people whose only interest is for themselves and their friends to get richer at all costs.
GUEST COMMENT
wawa January 27th, 2010 7:56 pm
It seems that you are the naive one for thinking that Obama is simply wishy-washy, and not an active part of the ongoing conspiracy against us.
UNITY PROGRESS
Not at all, I have repeatedly and since about March been ripping Obama for abandoning basically everyone who voted for him and for being way too far to the right. I've been extremely anti-Obama and I was one of the very first to predict that he will lose in 2012.
However, technically Obama is not fully part of "the conspiracy," as you put it, to destroy the US economy because the economy was essentially wrecked long before Obama even ran for President, and because he has been working mostly in the public sector over the years, whereas advisors such as Geithner and Summers are mostly private sector fortune seekers. If he is part of "the conspiracy," he is a johnny come lately.
It is possible that Obama is simply extremely naive and has not understood just how bad the economy is until perhaps recently. After all, other than in the 1930's, the economy has always bounced back and jobs have always increased after every downturn. Until now.
My point in my short comment just above (which suffered like all short comments from a lack of enough context) was that whether or not Obama is part of "the conspiracy," he suffers from lack of political courage and from political naïveté. His lack of courage is shown by his being afraid to fire anyone.
With regard to the naiveté, When Obama thinks he can make agreements with those who don't really care whether the economy and /or the health care system works or not (with those who definitely are part of “the conspiracy”) and then no agreements emerge, does it really matter whether Obama is conspiratorial or not? He isn't going to be successful even if he is not conspiratorial.
In other words, even if he is not part of "the conspiracy," he might as well be. Whether he is part of "the conspiracy" is technically irrelevant in Obama's case, given the fact that he puts way too much faith in right wing Democrats such as Ben Nelson and in even farther to the right Republicans. He has not understood up to the present day that politicians such as those are obstacles that have to somehow be overcome (for example, by threatening them with prospective assistance to primary challengers) rather than assets that he can work with. The economy and the society as a whole is simply too damaged for the likes of Ben Nelson and Susan Collins to be relevant anymore, other than to the rich of course.
The above is in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Quake Recovery in Haiti Versus the Quake Recovery in Italy
The Italian government official, Guido Bertolaso, who led the country's response to the L'Aquila earthquake, has condemned relief efforts in Haiti as a disorganised "vanity parade", ahead of an international conference on rebuilding the devastated country. Thank you Guido Bertolaso for helping to get the truth out: this recovery effort smells like, well, it smells like a dead body actually.
I was just thinking the other day how the Italian quake was handled so well and yet until now I failed to think of bringing that up to support statements I have already made about the Haitian governments' failings being a major problem for the recovery of Haiti. That the US military will do relatively little good in the recovery effort is so obvious to me that I have seldom mentioned that aspect. (Is there anything left that the US civil government should do that the US military and the contractors associated with it is NOT asked to do anymore?)
You either have a good government that has real capabilities, some of which become far more needed after an earthquake, or you don't. Italy has a decent government with real capabilities and Haiti does not. Haiti is far right and Italy is not. America is closer to Haiti than it is to Italy on this subject. Enough said on that topic for now.
Shame on Italy's foreign minister for indirectly knocking his own countries’ fine earthquake relief job by criticizing Guido Bertolaso's criticism of the Haiti relief.
In the old days the common narrative coming from the right was that governments are bad because they are bureaucratic, which automatically means they are less efficient than other organizations, including private corporations and non-profit organizations (cutely referred to nowadays as NGO's which stands for non government organizations). Like all the other lies about government, this one is today seen for the farce that it is.
As an important side point, it should be noted that many NGO functions and capabilities exist only because right wingers have gutted government to the point where capabilities that need to exist don't exist in government agencies anymore, so they have to be created within the NGOs.
But we see today in general and after this earthquake in particular that most if not all private corporations and many non-profit organizations, as they go into action to fill the void caused by the lack of various important capabilities within the Haitian and the American governments, have burdensome bureaucracy and needless “rules and regulations.” Everything has to be run through the corporate committees and through the corporate chain of command, you know, and this guy, that guy, and that lady over there have to review things and sign off, you know. Every "i" has to be dotted and every "t" has to be crossed.
The vast majority of people who might want to physically go to Haiti to help out are simply not allowed to do so due to one bureaucratic reason or another. If the NGO doesn't stop them, one or more of the governments involved will stoop them. Many corporations and large NGO's today act like little tyrannical governments with nasty bureaucracies.
And of course, in a world where globalism has run amok, for anything more than pocket change to be deployed either by a NGO, by a government, or by both in tandem, there has to be a big flashy meeting featuring a lot of convoluted discussions in a nice place like Montreal among elites who wouldn't know how to dig for a survivor if a shovel hit them on the rear end.
So much for the idea that only government is subject to being partially paralyzed by too much bureaucracy. The most relevant issue is always going to be whether the bureaucracy problem is under control or not, whether government agencies or NGOs are involved. Bureaucracy can be under control, or not, in government, and in non-government organizations. Roughly speaking there are four possibilities:
--NGO bureaucracy out of control
--NGO bureaucracy in control
--Government bureaucracy out of control
--Government bureaucracy in control
The best combo is the last one: a government that avoids needless bureaucratic burdens while having enough capability and reach to deal in an organized and purposeful way with the aftermath a massive catastrophe. This is apparently what Italy enjoyed after their quake.
If as in Haiti you have 1,000 or more NGO's trying to deal with the aftermath, many of them are going to be semi-paralyzed by their inner bureaucracies. Moreover, you can forget about coordinating their actions so that the country as a whole optimizes both the relief and the rebuilding. Instead, with NGOs instead of governments in charge, you can count on a lot of confusion, a lot of inconsistency, and a lot of unequal treatment of various segments of the population, including for example the little detail of some getting adequate food and water after the quake and others not getting it.
Oh, and I am so enthusiastic about Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive supposedly taking charge of things! I'm bubbling over. I'm sure given the dire circumstances that the Americans will loosen up his dog collar and allow him a greater length of chain, laugh out loud.
Then again, maybe not: since Bellerive has a European education that the Americans will not trust, they might keep him on a very short leash despite the circumstances.
And if the Haitian international debt is not cancelled, the whole recovery effort is nothing more than a joke, and in that event people should have the right to have their donations refunded. There isn't going to be any real recovery in Haiti unless the foreign debt they supposedly owe is cancelled.
The above was in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
I was just thinking the other day how the Italian quake was handled so well and yet until now I failed to think of bringing that up to support statements I have already made about the Haitian governments' failings being a major problem for the recovery of Haiti. That the US military will do relatively little good in the recovery effort is so obvious to me that I have seldom mentioned that aspect. (Is there anything left that the US civil government should do that the US military and the contractors associated with it is NOT asked to do anymore?)
You either have a good government that has real capabilities, some of which become far more needed after an earthquake, or you don't. Italy has a decent government with real capabilities and Haiti does not. Haiti is far right and Italy is not. America is closer to Haiti than it is to Italy on this subject. Enough said on that topic for now.
Shame on Italy's foreign minister for indirectly knocking his own countries’ fine earthquake relief job by criticizing Guido Bertolaso's criticism of the Haiti relief.
In the old days the common narrative coming from the right was that governments are bad because they are bureaucratic, which automatically means they are less efficient than other organizations, including private corporations and non-profit organizations (cutely referred to nowadays as NGO's which stands for non government organizations). Like all the other lies about government, this one is today seen for the farce that it is.
As an important side point, it should be noted that many NGO functions and capabilities exist only because right wingers have gutted government to the point where capabilities that need to exist don't exist in government agencies anymore, so they have to be created within the NGOs.
But we see today in general and after this earthquake in particular that most if not all private corporations and many non-profit organizations, as they go into action to fill the void caused by the lack of various important capabilities within the Haitian and the American governments, have burdensome bureaucracy and needless “rules and regulations.” Everything has to be run through the corporate committees and through the corporate chain of command, you know, and this guy, that guy, and that lady over there have to review things and sign off, you know. Every "i" has to be dotted and every "t" has to be crossed.
The vast majority of people who might want to physically go to Haiti to help out are simply not allowed to do so due to one bureaucratic reason or another. If the NGO doesn't stop them, one or more of the governments involved will stoop them. Many corporations and large NGO's today act like little tyrannical governments with nasty bureaucracies.
And of course, in a world where globalism has run amok, for anything more than pocket change to be deployed either by a NGO, by a government, or by both in tandem, there has to be a big flashy meeting featuring a lot of convoluted discussions in a nice place like Montreal among elites who wouldn't know how to dig for a survivor if a shovel hit them on the rear end.
So much for the idea that only government is subject to being partially paralyzed by too much bureaucracy. The most relevant issue is always going to be whether the bureaucracy problem is under control or not, whether government agencies or NGOs are involved. Bureaucracy can be under control, or not, in government, and in non-government organizations. Roughly speaking there are four possibilities:
--NGO bureaucracy out of control
--NGO bureaucracy in control
--Government bureaucracy out of control
--Government bureaucracy in control
The best combo is the last one: a government that avoids needless bureaucratic burdens while having enough capability and reach to deal in an organized and purposeful way with the aftermath a massive catastrophe. This is apparently what Italy enjoyed after their quake.
If as in Haiti you have 1,000 or more NGO's trying to deal with the aftermath, many of them are going to be semi-paralyzed by their inner bureaucracies. Moreover, you can forget about coordinating their actions so that the country as a whole optimizes both the relief and the rebuilding. Instead, with NGOs instead of governments in charge, you can count on a lot of confusion, a lot of inconsistency, and a lot of unequal treatment of various segments of the population, including for example the little detail of some getting adequate food and water after the quake and others not getting it.
Oh, and I am so enthusiastic about Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive supposedly taking charge of things! I'm bubbling over. I'm sure given the dire circumstances that the Americans will loosen up his dog collar and allow him a greater length of chain, laugh out loud.
Then again, maybe not: since Bellerive has a European education that the Americans will not trust, they might keep him on a very short leash despite the circumstances.
And if the Haitian international debt is not cancelled, the whole recovery effort is nothing more than a joke, and in that event people should have the right to have their donations refunded. There isn't going to be any real recovery in Haiti unless the foreign debt they supposedly owe is cancelled.
The above was in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Failure of the Haitian Economy and the First Steps Needed to Improve It
In Haiti, agriculture has been damaged:
Physically by deforestation and the soil damage that results and to a much lesser extent by occasional hurricanes.
Economically by the forced take downs of import tariffs and other economic factors
Politically by the lack of progressive laws on land concentration and other political factors.
Nevertheless, any lush tropical country where vegetation grows rapidly and continually but which has agricultural shortcomings can always stop what they have been doing, make a fresh start on agriculture, and eventually reap big rewards. There are countries in Africa that would practically give everything they own for the kind of "pro agriculture" climate that Haiti has. It is absurd that Haiti should have to import anything that grows there.
My main point regarding the Haitian economy is that in general corporations see relatively few opportunities in Haiti where they can get competitive returns as compared to many, many other countries. It is ridiculous to expect that international corporations will be providing a decent living for any more than a very small number of Haitians for at least the next three decades and probably for much longer than that. Any Haitian or anyone else who thinks that international corporations are as a result of the Quake going to now all of a sudden raise Haiti up to the Dominican Republic's level is living in a dream world.
This is precisely why it is even more criminal than you might think that Haiti has a right wing, murderous government that the people don't want foisted on them by the "thanks but no thanks" corporations and by Washington. Haitians need the opposite type of government because that is a prerequisite for them to develop indigenously, with agriculture leading the way.
Note that I am not saying I would support the current Haitian government even if the corporations were investing heavily in Haiti. I am saying that if Haiti is going to move forward they have no choice but to be rid of the current government.
How about some reference for my point about the corporations being in the "thanks but no thanks" mode regarding Haiti? Here you go:
The World Fact Book (Central Intelligence Agency) Foreign Direct Investment in Countries
Wikipedia Foreign Investment Listings
and finally, here is a detailed spreadsheet showing foreign investment by country and by year.
The amount of investment in Haiti is so small that Haiti DOES NOT EVEN SHOW UP in the first two of the foreign investment by country lists above! If anything I am understating the problem, which wouldn't be the first time.
Haiti is a complete and total economic failure because it has been living a complete lie: that foreign investment will come as long as a regressive government eliminates tariffs and eliminates reasonable land distribution and so forth, and as long as the "security situation" is "handled" by a right wing government.
The government has to be replaced as a first and very important step toward discontinuing living the lie.
Given the actual lack of investment despite the government requested by the corporations being imposed on Haiti over and over again for many decades, and despite the specific policies requested by the corporations being imposed, it is completely absurd, obscene, and criminal for Haiti to have the type of government it has.
Even in New Orleans, investment by mega corporations has been far less than what was envisioned in the wet dreams of the far right free market drones. In Haiti, post quake investment will be miniscule, especially if you don't count the cruise ship landing facilities, laugh out loud. You see, in the free market, corporations can and do say "thanks but no thanks" all the time.
When the corporations say no thanks to post-Quake Haiti more so than ever before (they were already mostly investing elsewhere) the relevant questions become:
1. Will Haitians act to remove, curtail, territorially outflank, or at the very least ignore a formerly counterproductive and now irrelevant Haitian government led by Rene Preval and a Prime Minister?
2. Will the US take over from the now crippled Haitian government the roles of oppressor and killer so that those pesky dissenters now running loose can be kept in check? Or will the US say "Why bother oppressing, jailing, and if necessary killing?' in a country where there is no gold, no oil, virtually no Muslims, and very little investment interest among corporations?
3. (The real long shot...) Assuming (1) happens and regardless of whether (2) happens or not, will 2010-2020 Haitians eventually look at being occupied by the American military in roughly the same way as they eventually looked at the French plantation owners in the late 18th century?
But then, realizing that they are totally outgunned in Port-au-Prince, will they concentrate on keeping sweatshops, Haitian oligarchs, and troops out of at least North and Central Haiti?
Haitian history is all about things never working out the way they were supposed to despite foundations being laid, or about never working out in good ways, if you prefer. The Quake’s destruction creates a theoretical opportunity for at least some Haitians to get out of the rotten dynamics of oppression, killing, and economic backwardness that have been powered from both within and outside the country.
In other words, an opportunity has arisen for things to go right for a major change. It would truly be a shock if things went right in Haiti, wouldn't it? It would be sort of a new Quake as big as the first Quake.
The first step is for Haitians who could create a viable government to get out of Port-au-Prince, which is happening. We await signs for another step in the forward direction.
The above was in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
Physically by deforestation and the soil damage that results and to a much lesser extent by occasional hurricanes.
Economically by the forced take downs of import tariffs and other economic factors
Politically by the lack of progressive laws on land concentration and other political factors.
Nevertheless, any lush tropical country where vegetation grows rapidly and continually but which has agricultural shortcomings can always stop what they have been doing, make a fresh start on agriculture, and eventually reap big rewards. There are countries in Africa that would practically give everything they own for the kind of "pro agriculture" climate that Haiti has. It is absurd that Haiti should have to import anything that grows there.
My main point regarding the Haitian economy is that in general corporations see relatively few opportunities in Haiti where they can get competitive returns as compared to many, many other countries. It is ridiculous to expect that international corporations will be providing a decent living for any more than a very small number of Haitians for at least the next three decades and probably for much longer than that. Any Haitian or anyone else who thinks that international corporations are as a result of the Quake going to now all of a sudden raise Haiti up to the Dominican Republic's level is living in a dream world.
This is precisely why it is even more criminal than you might think that Haiti has a right wing, murderous government that the people don't want foisted on them by the "thanks but no thanks" corporations and by Washington. Haitians need the opposite type of government because that is a prerequisite for them to develop indigenously, with agriculture leading the way.
Note that I am not saying I would support the current Haitian government even if the corporations were investing heavily in Haiti. I am saying that if Haiti is going to move forward they have no choice but to be rid of the current government.
How about some reference for my point about the corporations being in the "thanks but no thanks" mode regarding Haiti? Here you go:
The World Fact Book (Central Intelligence Agency) Foreign Direct Investment in Countries
Wikipedia Foreign Investment Listings
and finally, here is a detailed spreadsheet showing foreign investment by country and by year.
The amount of investment in Haiti is so small that Haiti DOES NOT EVEN SHOW UP in the first two of the foreign investment by country lists above! If anything I am understating the problem, which wouldn't be the first time.
Haiti is a complete and total economic failure because it has been living a complete lie: that foreign investment will come as long as a regressive government eliminates tariffs and eliminates reasonable land distribution and so forth, and as long as the "security situation" is "handled" by a right wing government.
The government has to be replaced as a first and very important step toward discontinuing living the lie.
Given the actual lack of investment despite the government requested by the corporations being imposed on Haiti over and over again for many decades, and despite the specific policies requested by the corporations being imposed, it is completely absurd, obscene, and criminal for Haiti to have the type of government it has.
Even in New Orleans, investment by mega corporations has been far less than what was envisioned in the wet dreams of the far right free market drones. In Haiti, post quake investment will be miniscule, especially if you don't count the cruise ship landing facilities, laugh out loud. You see, in the free market, corporations can and do say "thanks but no thanks" all the time.
When the corporations say no thanks to post-Quake Haiti more so than ever before (they were already mostly investing elsewhere) the relevant questions become:
1. Will Haitians act to remove, curtail, territorially outflank, or at the very least ignore a formerly counterproductive and now irrelevant Haitian government led by Rene Preval and a Prime Minister?
2. Will the US take over from the now crippled Haitian government the roles of oppressor and killer so that those pesky dissenters now running loose can be kept in check? Or will the US say "Why bother oppressing, jailing, and if necessary killing?' in a country where there is no gold, no oil, virtually no Muslims, and very little investment interest among corporations?
3. (The real long shot...) Assuming (1) happens and regardless of whether (2) happens or not, will 2010-2020 Haitians eventually look at being occupied by the American military in roughly the same way as they eventually looked at the French plantation owners in the late 18th century?
But then, realizing that they are totally outgunned in Port-au-Prince, will they concentrate on keeping sweatshops, Haitian oligarchs, and troops out of at least North and Central Haiti?
Haitian history is all about things never working out the way they were supposed to despite foundations being laid, or about never working out in good ways, if you prefer. The Quake’s destruction creates a theoretical opportunity for at least some Haitians to get out of the rotten dynamics of oppression, killing, and economic backwardness that have been powered from both within and outside the country.
In other words, an opportunity has arisen for things to go right for a major change. It would truly be a shock if things went right in Haiti, wouldn't it? It would be sort of a new Quake as big as the first Quake.
The first step is for Haitians who could create a viable government to get out of Port-au-Prince, which is happening. We await signs for another step in the forward direction.
The above was in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
Just a Little Teensy bit too much Intervention in Haiti: The President Can't get a Passport!
Wow, the Haitian President can't get a passport to go to Haiti. Sounds like there has been just a wee bit too much foreign intervention and exploitation in Haiti. A President not being able to get a passport so he can go to his own country is just a little over the top, don't you think? Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton taken care of this,? laugh out loud.
So in the wake of gross interference the people of the intervening countries are financially on the hook when disasters strike and the losses are magnified due to the interventions? Apparently so. Technically, earthquake donations can be thought of as payments to offset the extra Quake damage and loss due to the effects of the excessive intervention.
Nice summary here but the author is squeamish about mentioning that Haitian dissenters, who for one thing wanted to have a government much more ready for a Quake, have simply been murdered by their government over the years with many more dissenters imprisoned, at least until the Quake freed them.
Meanwhile, the actual Haitian government installed by foreigners was quite content to range from counterproductive to deadly in normal times, and then was completely irrelevant and worthless after a big Quake.
I actually prefer the irrelevant version to the counterproductive version.
The above was in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
So in the wake of gross interference the people of the intervening countries are financially on the hook when disasters strike and the losses are magnified due to the interventions? Apparently so. Technically, earthquake donations can be thought of as payments to offset the extra Quake damage and loss due to the effects of the excessive intervention.
Nice summary here but the author is squeamish about mentioning that Haitian dissenters, who for one thing wanted to have a government much more ready for a Quake, have simply been murdered by their government over the years with many more dissenters imprisoned, at least until the Quake freed them.
Meanwhile, the actual Haitian government installed by foreigners was quite content to range from counterproductive to deadly in normal times, and then was completely irrelevant and worthless after a big Quake.
I actually prefer the irrelevant version to the counterproductive version.
The above was in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
Obama's Grand Canyon: The Massive Gap Between What he Proposes and What Actually Happens
GUEST COMMENT
UNITY PROGRESS
I too see this article as riddled with errors and misconceptions. I was actually fascinated as to how bad it is, at least in my opinion. I see that other comments are ripping into this article; it's always good to see CD comment writers right on the ball.
I nominate this article for Worst CD Article of the Year 2010. But I don't have time to specifically lodge my many disagreements with the article; I am just making a quick response to another comment....
The Obama modus operandi is that all actual budgets, laws and regulations will range from right to hard right, but occasionally, when for example his ratings are tanking even worse than usual, there will be some populist talk and a few populist proposals. But notice that very, very little of what Obama proposes during his populist talk fests ever actually becomes law.
What does become law is going to be very, very small scale. You sitting there will most likely not benefit from anything that actually is made law coming from an Obama populist talk fest.
The above was in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
Pitch Fork January 24th, 2010 1:02 pm
This is one of the most pathetic pieces I've read in a very long time. It is a good example of the Obama co-dependent mindset that will have his party get a bigger shovel instead of a course correction.
On Wednesday morning, for the first time, I saw Obama on teevee and thought, "Hmmm, maybe there's some potential in this president after all." Why? Because he made a short statement about collecting $5bn in taxes owed by corporations who also do business with the government. It was a concrete, achievable step.
Next day, the president is out talking about reinstalling a firewall between banking and investing. It sounded good. Everywhere I went on the internets people were saying, "It sounds good. Now let's see if he delivers."
The president has a credibility chasm. If he set goals for progress that would help the American people, AND THEN FOLLOWED THROUGH, he could rebuild his credibility and salvage his presidency. But, alas, no. Next day I hear that Obama is back on the campaign trail and bringing back Pouffle, Piffle, whatever his Rove's name is, which is the last thing this president needs and the last thing this country needs.
UNITY PROGRESS
I too see this article as riddled with errors and misconceptions. I was actually fascinated as to how bad it is, at least in my opinion. I see that other comments are ripping into this article; it's always good to see CD comment writers right on the ball.
I nominate this article for Worst CD Article of the Year 2010. But I don't have time to specifically lodge my many disagreements with the article; I am just making a quick response to another comment....
The Obama modus operandi is that all actual budgets, laws and regulations will range from right to hard right, but occasionally, when for example his ratings are tanking even worse than usual, there will be some populist talk and a few populist proposals. But notice that very, very little of what Obama proposes during his populist talk fests ever actually becomes law.
What does become law is going to be very, very small scale. You sitting there will most likely not benefit from anything that actually is made law coming from an Obama populist talk fest.
The above was in response to this article.
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.
The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.
Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
STATES ACT TO COUNTER THE DOOMED TO FAIL 2010 US HEALTH LAWS
THINK AGAIN IF YOU THINK BEING FORCED TO BUY INSURANCE IS A GOOD LONG TERM PLAN
